C'est Non Un Blog

I was looking back at some of my very first blog entries and noticed a few things.

I was in love with Snapple back then.

One of my very first posts was about the fact that they were going to make a Lord of the Rings musical. As I’m reading this, my new Entertainment Weekly is open in front of me to the review of the just opened LotRs musical. Creepy, no?

If you write the phrase “I’ll always remember…” and then don’t actually write down details of what it is that you will always remember, chances are, you’ll forget it.

Not only is this not Monday, but this isn’t even this week’s batch of reviews! It’s last weeks’. Oops. I know, I know. You don’t have to say it. In the meantime, enjoy these reviews:

(March 13)

——Three Extremes (2004)——

Three masters of Asian horror from three different countries came together to make this film compilation that doesn’t entirely work but certainly has enough elements to it to make it very watchable. The first is Fruit Chan from Hong Kong, the one filmmaker I wasn’t already familiar with. His movie, Dumplings, is about an aging actress who wants to reverse her aging to regain the attention of her drifting husband and is willing to do so by consuming some dumplings made from very questionable materials. The film is very interesting and works, and yet by the end I thought we were missing a whole lot. Interesting that I thought that because disk two is actually a full-length version of Dumplings. I’m very interested to see if the full version of the film erases some of the feelings that I had of the incompleteness of the picture and the abrupt nature of the ending.

Cut, by South Korea’s Chan-Wook Park was the most disappointing of the three films for me. The film seems to just recycle the themes of his other, better, work, most notably OldBoy. This story of a film director taken hostage by a disgruntled film extra is the most visually disturbing of the three films but because of its length it doesn’t really delve properly into the motivations of our characters. Nothing feels properly fleshed out, which in the end hurts the piece.

My favorite segment (and the one most likely to polarize audiences) was Takashi Miike of Japan’s Box. Miike has always been a little out there in left field, and Box is no different. This is a beautiful film though, using exquisite visuals (probably the best of his career) to propel a more subtle sort of storytelling that asks the audience to put a lot of themselves into it. It’s a story of a girl haunted by her past, about jealousy, her sister, an accidental fire. Miike gives you pieces to a larger story and asks you to put them all together. And it works. The nature of short films by necessity needs certain shortcuts to be taken to give you that feeling of having watched a full length film, but in half of the time. Box does that and will haunt you.

(SEE)

(March 14)

——Dave Chappelle’s Block Party (2006)——

In 2004 (before he went crazy) Dave Chappelle decided to throw the coolest block party in the history of block parties and threw it on a street in Brooklyn with the great music video and now film director Michel Gondry behind the camera. The result of which is one of the greatest concert films out there, right up there with The Last Waltz and Stop Making Sense. One of the genius ideas of this film is to jump back and forth in time to show us the best moments of the concert intercut with everything that happened before the concert happened. We not only get to see Chappelle interacting with the acts that are going to perform live for him, but we also get to see Chappelle go to his home town and give out golden tickets to see the show. The joy of the show is only amplified by seeing the joy in these people (most notably some college students and a marching band) as they are given an opportunity to go see something they probably never would have ever been able to see otherwise.

Thus we are given a document of not only the concert itself but of every element of the concert before, during and after. We learn about the performers, the people seeing the show, even the people who are giving up their street and buildings so that they can put on the concert. It’s great documentary. It also helps that the concert kicks a whole lot of ass too.

(MUST SEE)

——Criss Cross (1948)——

Probably one of those most traditional noirs I have in my collection, Criss Cross follows the very noir-ish setup of a man falling in love with the wrong kind of woman, which ultimately leads him towards crime and tragedy. Burt Lancaster comes home after spending several years away to get over his ex-wife. Of course the minute he sets foot back in town he’s searching out his past again and when he finally does find his ex-wife they begin to fall in love all over again. Thing is, she has a tendency to make bad decisions, most notably like the one where she has taken up with a local hood. To cover up that they have actually been having an affair, Lancaster comes up on the spot with the idea that he was actually talking with her about a heist he wanted to pull off with the hood on his armored car. Things go downhill from there.

The opening of the film sets up the relationships and conflicts, moods and tones of the film so deftly and effectively that the rest of the film is a bit of a let down when it flashes back to the start of the story and follows a much more conventional narrative. The movie still pulls you right in to the suspenseful finish though, and is thus definitely worth a look.

(SEE)

——Big Deal on Madonna Street (1958)——

This is a fun, funny movie. Mario Monicelli’s Big Deal on Madonna Street plays off of the conventions of other heist movies, most notably Jules Dassin’s Rififi (which I reviewed last time I decided to post one of these things) except for where in Rififi highly trained professionals pull of the perfect heist, in Big Deal on Madonna Street common street hoods and nobodies blunder their way through one of the worst heists in film history. They aren’t even a real gang or one brought together through their own specialized skills. Essentially they are brought together because the man who thought up the heist was arrested for (poorly) stealing a car and they need to find someone to take the fall for him so he can get back out.

These misfits bumble their way through every aspect of the heist in such a “smack yourself upside the forehead” way that you can’t help but laugh your way through the whole thing. These guys don’t have any skills, nor do they even like each other, but they are all obsessed with pulling off the perfect heist. They couldn’t do any worse a job at it. You should really see this. How often do you see a heist movie where the criminals end up going off to get legitimate jobs at the end?

(MUST SEE)

——The Hills Have Eyes (2006)——

As horror movies go, this one is a pretty ambitious, yet empty effort. (I recently acquired the original: expect a review of it in the future.) It is one of the current crop of modern horror films that plays homage to horror’s golden age in the 70’s, especially towards classics like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and yet fails to truly understand what it was about those movies that worked (I’m reminded of last year’s Chainsaw remake). In the 70’s they were pushing the limits of gore, a limit that seems to have increased by miles in today’s day and age. Therefore the modern crop of horror films is trying to push the limits once more, but in the process are missing what actually made those original horror films great. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (one of my all time favorite movies, btw) is scary not because of the gore, although it does have that, but is scary because of the overwhelming atmosphere of fear and dread it created. There is this unpredictable air to the film where you honestly don’t know how things are going to turn out that only adds to the atmosphere of the film. In some of these modern remakes, like the new Chainsaw and The Hills Have Eyes, we either know how the film is going to end or just don’t care, because the filmmaker doesn’t ever give us time to care, instead feeling it necessary to not waste any time to get right to the good stuff. That unfortunately ruins it.

This isn’t really a bad film, not like the Chainsaw remake anyway, but it won’t do anything for you either. I found it really hard to care about the main characters and also saw a lot of great ideas being employed only halfway. I was instead thinking about another one of the new horror films that actually works, this year’s Hostel, which does work for precisely the same reason that the great 70’s horror films worked. It works because we are immersed in a world before the realities of that world are shaken out from right underneath our feet. Horror only really works when you are personally invested in it.

(MISS)

(March 15)

——The Rules of the Game (1939)——

Jean Renoir’s The Rules of the Game is widely hailed nowadays as one of the undisputed classics of film, put right at the very top with Orson Welles’ similar in scope but much different in the details Citizen Kane. It’s hard for me to know what really to write about this film then, as it is such a classic and so much has been written about it. What do you say, really, other than I should see it a couple more times before I’m really qualified to discuss theory on it. I saw it originally in my freshman year film class, and I remember being much in awe of its deep focus photography (mostly because I was told to be in awe of it). The ending party sequence is amazing to behold in all of its detail, as numerous plots unfold simultaneously and spontaneously in front of your eyes. It’s also quite amusing, at that.

Sequences like that one show you why the film is so well loved, and I think sequences like those at the start of the film before everyone meets in the country show you why they should matter. That first section of the film just never gets off the ground for me. Something about it just doesn’t work. It’s not until later when you see all of the social commentary fireworks go off that you understand why the beginning isn’t as impressive. There’s just not enough going on. Up until we get to the famous hunt sequence everything has just be exposition and set-up. Once we know what everyone’s role in the story is, then, finally, we can reap in the rewards.

(MUST SEE)

(March 16)

——Black Angel (1946)——

I recently went and picked up the Universal film noir DVDs that I neglected to pick up last year and so far, of them, this is definitely one of the most interesting. A beautiful singer is murdered in her apartment. A man is caught in the wrong place and the wrong time and is falsely accused and convicted of murdering her. The film is about his wife, who knows he can’t be guilty and rushes to try to find the real killer before he is executed.

What is really interesting about this film is the contrast between how pure her motives are and how shady them men around her are. It should be noted that her husband cheated on her with the murdered woman and was being blackmailed by her (thus his motive for killing her). The man she initially thinks did it was the woman’s husband, now a miserable drunk. When it is proved he didn’t do it, however, he sobers up and joins her on her quest to find the real killer. Because he’s fallen in love with her, of course.

But that’s not the oddest part of the film. They come to the conclusion that the mob affiliated nightclub owner played by Peter Lorre must be the real killer. So to dig up evidence that he did it they go undercover as a nightclub act. He writes the songs, she sings them. They become quite a sensation and become a hit duo for the club. What’s funny about this is that weeks go by with their success where they don’t actually find any new evidence while the poor woman’s husband’s day of execution draws nearer and nearer.

I won’t spoil the twist ending that had me fooled and works quite well to make this more than just your average noir. I’ll just end by telling you that this one is worth checking out.

(SEE)

(March 17)

——Naked Lunch (1991)——

Regular readers of this column (if you can call it that) have probably noticed a pattern lately of my steady stream of reviews for David Cronenberg films. Every once and a while I discover a truly amazing and weird filmmaker I have never experienced before and then gorge myself on their films. Last year my focus was on a lot of Asian filmmakers like Seijun Suzuki and Takashi Miike. You can find a similar sort of aesthetic of a director marching to the beat of his own drum in Cronenberg’s films. And no other film I’ve seen so far exemplifies that more than this film, Naked Lunch.

Wow, this is a crazy film. I’ll warn you now. It’s not for everyone. But those people who do get into it I think will love it as much as I did. It’s based on William S. Burroughs’ “unfilmable” novel and Cronenberg uses elements from other novels and Burroughs’ own life, plus hallucinatory elements from his own imagination, to fill out the story and make it into something crazy-fun.

Bill Lee (Peter Weller, or as you may know otherwise him, Robocop) is an exterminator whose wife gets him hooked on his own pesticide powder, which causes him to see a giant beetle that tells him to kill his wife and become a spy. He goes from there to the Interzone where anything is possible and no one can be trusted, while he types up reports on his giant talking beetle typewriter, all the while taking all sorts of new and mind tripping new drugs made from bugs. Part of the fun of the film is in trying to figure out what elements in the film are real, and how his hallucinations relate to the real world. The story becomes a sort of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas-type autobiography of Burrough’s exploring what exactly happens to your mind when you become addicted to mind-altering drugs. The movie is a total trip. There are so many unforgettable images that I imagine will stick with me for a long time.

(MUST SEE)

(March 18)

——Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (2005)——

I honestly feel this is one of the best films of 2005. In a time when computer animation has become all the rage and Disney has shut down its traditional animation division, it is interesting that of the three films nominated for Best Animated Film at the 2005 Oscars, not one was computer animated (Wallace & Gromit won). Truth is that the hand-crafted claymation of Wallace & Gromit has more heart and soul than any recent animated film made outside of Pixar.

The genius of this film comes from the mere simplicity of the premise. Wallace is a simple Englishman inventor of crazy contraptions who loves animals, and even more so, loves cheese. Gromit is his faithful dog/servant, patient with Wallace’s idiosyncrasies always there to pull him out of trouble. The two operate a very successful humane pest removal service for a town obsessed with their veggies, that is until Wallace accidentally creates the “Were-Rabbit” of the title.

Why is this movie so funny? It’s the little details. Like during the credits, when we gently glide past different pictures on Wallace & Gromit’s wall that tell a story of the two getting into a fight and then making up. Or like the detail in the scene when Wallace quickly pulls up an empty box to cover his suddenly naked self, and on the outside of the box it says “May Contain Nuts.” The scene that made me laugh the most, however, is the one where Wallace & Gromit use their bunny-vac to suck numerous rabbits out of their holes in a particularly well inhabited lawn. As the other characters in the scene talk in the foreground we can see the various rabbits in the background become suddenly surprised to find that they are falling backwards into their holes. Every time I see it the gag has me in stitches. If you haven’t seen this one yet go out and rent it.

(MUST SEE)

——Being There (1979)——

I had never heard of this film before reading about it in Ebert’s The Great Movies II, but after having seen it I cannot more heartily recommend this film to all of you. This is brilliant satire at its most witty and funny about how we work as a political and entertainment industry soundbite obsessed culture. The movie is about Chance (Peter Sellers), a mentally retarded middle aged man who has grown up in a household where he was the gardener, constantly watched television, and never left the house. One day the old man dies and Chance is evicted, and he wanders out on the streets until by accident (literally and figuratively) he meets the wife (played by Shirley McLaine) of a rich business man, influential in Washington, who also happens to be dying. Through this man Chance meets the President and through the President becomes famous.

Because Chance is older, impeccably dressed, and speaks in a deliberate tone people misunderstand what he is saying and assume he means something greater than what he actually says. When asked who he is, Chance the gardener is mistaken for Chauncy Gardener. You see, Chance doesn’t know any better and tends to repeat simple phrases and behaviors he’s learned from television. People take him to be profound though. Which is exactly how he becomes famous through the President. By the end of the film several influential men are talking about Chauncy being the next President. This film is frequently both hilarious and heartfelt, and well worth seeing.

(MUST SEE)

I’m pretty sure we saw a hooker over at Dunkin’ Donuts this morning. This girl walks across the parking lot and you can’t miss her. It is still pretty cold up in Manchester, but here is this girl wearing this tiny, slinky white dress that came down to about her crotch with mega high heels on. She walks in, comes out a little while later and I never noticed before the car she came in. But sure enough, she gets into this giant brown “if this van’s a rockin’, don’t come a knockin'” van with this big guy. Probably enough room in the back for a king. That was a fun way to start the morning.

Oh yeah. I’m sure you all are already aware of this, but let me just put it into words: Anytime I promise to have something for you folks, especially if I give you a date, there is a mighty good chance that I’m lying. Just expect it and be pleasantly surprised if I come through. I am the worst procrastinator in the world. Yes, you will get a new Monday Movie Review. Will it be soon? Hell if I know. Will the next one actually come out on Monday? Your guess is as good as mine. I’m just saying people, don’t get your hopes up over stupid ol’ me. I suck. Like I could be working on my stuff right now instead of writing this. Am I? Of course not. I’m an ass.

What the hell? I got an email today from MySpace telling me that I got a new message from Dorothy, whoever the hell that is. I click on the link to read the message and…there is no message. What’s that all about?

Am I the only one out there who still hasn’t done their taxes? Show of hands there, people.

Alright, it is nowhere near Monday. I’ve got a good excuse though! I started my reviews on time, but sickness clouded my head and made forward movement very difficult. I’ve pieced the rest together since then. I hope you enjoy what follows. The next Monday Movie Review I’m hoping will still be right on schedule and ready for Monday and won’t be late again. I hate leaving you guys hanging, especially since this seems to be all I really post anymore.

(March 6)

——Rififi (1955)——

I really want to see more of Jules Dassin’s films, because the few that are available from Criterion right now are so good that I just know that I’ll love the rest of his work. Rififi is considered by many to be his best and it is hard to argue with that. Made in exile in France after being blacklisted in America, this is a very tight heist movie unique in a whole lot of ways. A lot is made about the fact that the entire heist takes up about a third of the film, contains no dialogue or music, and is for the most part pretty silent. It’s an excellent bit of filmmaking, building up plenty of suspense and excitement. But what most people fail to mention is that that third of the film is the MIDDLE third of the film, and seems almost inconsequential to the actual plot and movement of the first and third acts. It’s not inconsequential though, it just seems that way. The real point of the sequence is to show how much effort went into pulling off the perfect heist, and to contrast that with how the perfect heist can fall to pieces by simple human nature. The safe cracker has a weakness for the ladies, which is all it takes to let their enemies in on the fact that they were the ones who pulled off the heist. What precedes and follows the heist is gritty film noir leagues above most others.

(MUST SEE)

——Made In Britain (1982)——

Alan Clarke is an English filmmaker who made very gritty films about youth in Margaret Thatcher’s UK, this being one such film about a young neo-nazi punk played by Tim Roth. Trevor is constantly in trouble, in a youth detention center, and well on his way to prison as an adult. Here’s a good quote from the back of the DVD box: “This is the unsparing portrait of youth fueled by rage and hate prowling an empire ruled by repression and despair.” That’s a pretty accurate depiction of what this movie is like. The writing is very tight and almost stage-like and the acting is dead on from Tim Roth. We don’t necessarily like or agree with where Trevor is coming from, but we do sympathize with his surprisingly eloquent observations of an inhuman world.

(SEE)

——Heathers (1988)——

Heathers has become its own term for a genre in pop culture terminology for a black high school comedy, and watching this for the first time the other night I can definitely see why. This is a devilishly good low budget comedy. You can see all the roots of Tina Fey’s Mean Girls in this film. And I’m sorry Clancy for saying that I was constantly reminded of you whenever I saw Christian Slater’s character on screen.

Winona Ryder is the hero of this tale, as a girl who wants to be popular and joins the most popular click in the school: The Heathers. Yep, three girls, all named Heather. It becomes very quickly apparent that the lead Heather is a massive bitch. Meanwhile, Ryder starts a relationship with the new kid played by Slater. He seems very cool at first, but then stages an “accidental” suicide for the main Heather that throws events into motion that throw into light the fact that Slater is very obsessed with teenage suicide. Ryder gets roped in and wants out, and the film goes off from there.

This movie is very funny, very black, and has a whole lot of social satire thrown in. The movie has lots of classic lines that I’m sure are repeated endlessly by the fans of this film, as well as probably myself, after seeing the movie another couple times. Any fans of the high school satire should definitely go out and find this movie.

(MUST SEE)

——Death Walks at Midnight (1972)——

The boxset for this is actually pretty cool. Two films, great packaging, nice booklet, a bonus CD of various Italian giallo soundtrack songs. The director, Luciano Ercoli, shows some ability with the camera, composing a couple very interesting shots. The action sequence on the roof at the end of the film is very well done (probably the only redeemable part of the film) and reminded me a bit of the end of Ichi the Killer. But other than that, this is definitely a dud, not worth wasting much time on (for you watching it or me writing about it).

(MISS)

(March 7)

——16 Blocks (2006)——

I love Bruce Willis. The man just knows how to carry a movie, even when he is only a supporting character. I was pleasantly surprised by just how good this movie was. I liked the premise when I saw the trailer, but never thought the film could pull it all together like it did. Amen. God loves small genre films that can pull it all together.

Willis plays a corrupt cop washed up and on his last legs. He’s an alcoholic with a limp, so beaten down that his colleagues leave him at a crime scene to preserve it until the uniformed cops get there. The opening scenes are spartan filmmaking at its best, laying out the many layers of the film quickly and with as little exposition as possible. When Mos Def’s witness finally comes into play you know everything you need to know about Willis’ character.

The plot? Willis has to get Mos Def 16 Blocks across town to the Grand Jury at the courthouse in about two hours. Cops want Mos Def dead. That’s all you really need to know. The rest is popcorn film goodness. Mos Def’s character manages to both be extremely annoying and extremely funny all at the same time. Willis is an action hero here, but a believable one for the character in the movie. He’s not jumping off any buildings like in Die Hard. All and all I definitely think this one deserves a shot.

(SEE)

(March 10)

——Network (1976)——

This would make a perfect part of a double header with David Cronenberg’s Videodrome. Both are eerily prophetic of an audiences’ appetite for violence and reality in television, and both speak of television as the new religion. That said, don’t expect to see any stomach vaginas or meat guns in this film.

What you can expect is an excellent drama from Sidney Lumet about a struggling network on its way out that suddenly finds a ratings goldmine when its aging newsman, Howard Beale, forced into retirement, tells the audience at home that he is going to kill himself live, on the air. The network wants to get rid of him immediately, but Faye Dunaway’s head of the entertainment division executive sees a ratings bonanza if they keep him on the air and let him say what he wants to say. He finally does strike it rich by getting an epiphany from God, and goes on the air shouting over and over, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”

Now I must have seen that clip of him saying that a hundred times in Oscar montages, but it means nothing and pales in comparison to the complete scene, which had the hairs on the back of my neck standing up on end. Oh man, is that some good film. The rest of the film is quite good too. I got quite the chuckle out of seeing some Communist revolutionaries cum television stars fight over profit shares. I also was very creeped out by the new newsroom set, which is built more like a gameshow and contains plenty of religious iconography. Scary to see how close that metaphor can actually be to reality in today’s television.

(MUST SEE)

——The Grifters (1990)——

Ever since seeing Ridley Scott’s Matchstick Men I’ve been a little cautious when it comes to films about con men, since that film involved a major con on the main character at the end of the film and, by relation, a con on us, the audience. That’s not the first film I’ve seen that’s done that, but it was definitely the film that pissed me off the most. What drew me to this film was the source material. Ever since seeing Coup de Torchon (1981) I’ve become a big fan of Jim Thompson, who wrote the books for both of these films (as well as the excellent The Getaway (1972) by Sam Peckinpah). And because it was based on that source material I shouldn’t have been surprised that I had an excellent film waiting for me.

John Cusack is a master of the short con, saving up money in a low rent hotel room and lying to his girlfriend (Annette Bening) about what he does for a living (he says he’s a peanut salesman). His girlfriend also hasn’t happened to mention to him that she cons as well, using her sexuality as bate, and has been looking for another partner for a long con since her last partner went crazy. He hasn’t spoken to his mom (Angelica Huston) in years, probably because she was also a con woman and had little to do with him growing up. Now she works for the mob placing bets down on long shots to lower the take if they win.

When Roy, our con man, takes a bat to the stomach by a bartender hip to his scams he ends up having to go to the hospital because of internal bleeding, which is what starts off our plot. The mother finds out and takes care of him, setting him off, which the girlfriend sees and starts to put the pieces together about. Thus everyone is desperate and trying to work everyone else. I won’t ruin any more than that.

The movie is very funny though, suspenseful, and honestly had me surprised at the end, zagging where I thought it might zig. Much more than a con movie, this is a classic noir, dripping with sex and dark motives, seedy locations and even seedier people. It’s one of those headtrip noirs that make you love how much you hate what’s going on. I definitely recommend this one.

(MUST SEE)

(March 11)

——All the President’s Men (1976)——

This is a great movie. That said, this is not the movie to see right before going to bed when you have a fever. I woke up in the middle of the night reciting the names of Watergate conspirators in my head over and over again. Not fun.

Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman are just perfect as the two reporters at the Washington Post who dug and dug to uncover a conspiracy no one expected or suspected that reached up all the way into the highest reaches of the government. The pleasure in watching the movie is seeing how the two con their way into getting people to reveal information they either don’t want to share or have been told they can’t share. This is one of those movies that is scary because of how much it reminds you of current events, and yet makes you feel good because these two reporters some how did the impossible and put numerous men in prison and forced Nixon out of the White House. All while everyone thought they were crazy and making up lies in doing so.

(MUST SEE)

——Midnight Cowboy (1969)——

This is ALSO another movie you probably don’t want to watch right before going to bed when you are sick, especially since I had started a cough that sounded a lot like Ratso Rizzo’s in this film. When you think about it, it is kind of amazing to think that this was the film that won the best picture Oscar for 1969, but then again in the year that also gave us Woodstock and so many other huge cultural moments, maybe it isn’t so hard to believe. And at its heart Midnight Cowboy is just a tear jerker buddy movie, which Oscar loves so much anyway.

That shouldn’t sound like a condemnation, though. This is a very literate work about a naïve hustler just trying to live the American dream, arriving in New York City with all of the hopes in the world and then being slowly eaten alive by hardship and other peoples’ apathy. Poor Joe Buck. Guy finally gets himself a hustle, but unbeknownst to him, he’s the one being hustled. When he asks the woman to pay him she starts crying and he ends up paying her. In fact he pays a lot of people. Being the Southern gentleman he is, he dishes out far more money than he ever makes in the film.

One of those people working him for money is “Ratso” Rizzo, a sick, crippled lowlife just scraping by who’ll do anything for cash. He lives in an abandoned building and steals most of his food to live. When they first meet he cons Buck by sending him to an Evangelist instead of a pimp. Buck wants to kill him, but once he finally tracks him down his good nature won’t let him take out his vengeance on this pathetic man. At this point Joe Buck has nothing. Nowhere to live, no money, and all of his belongings are taken from him. He has to depend on Rizzo to survive. At this point Rizzo needs Buck as much as he needs him. They develop a very close relationship after finding one other person in the world that will actually give a shit about them.

Parts of this film are very 60’s. The soundtrack for one, and the Warholian party (which I learned was actually at a set based on Warhol’s factory, much of it actually leant by Warhol, including all of his friends). And yet the underlying story still holds up and is quite timeless. I wouldn’t rush out to see this again, but it is a very well done film.

(SEE)

(March 12)

——First Blood (1982)——

Poor John Rambo just wanted a sandwich.

After finding out that his last surviving friend from his Green Beret squad in Vietnam died of cancer caused by exposure to Agent Orange, Rambo walks to the next nearest town to get himself a bite to eat. Brian Dennehy is the sheriff of this quiet Pacific Northwest town, and upon seeing the smelly looking Rambo he picks him up in his cruiser and drives him right back out of town. The problem is Rambo didn’t do anything and he’s still hungry. So when Dennehy drops him off and starts driving back into town, Rambo walks in after him. Dennehy pulls over the car and in an inspired act of supreme stupidity arrests Rambo for “vagrancy”.

Now remember, Rambo hasn’t done anything yet other than ask for a sandwich. They take him into the jail and manhandle him, which just happens to give him some rather nasty flashbacks to being tortured by the Viet Cong. When they hold a razor up to his throat he finally goes berserk, kicks all of their asses, and breaks out into the forests in the mountains surrounding the town. Now, for some reason, Dennehy has a giant bug up his ass, because he takes his men up there to find him so he can teach him that you don’t mess with Dennehy in his town.

What none of them seem to grasp is that Rambo is the strongest, toughest Green Beret that ever was. They hunt him like an animal, only to be taken down one by one by his cool survival training. Even after his commanding officer comes to help out, Dennehy can’t figure out that even a rocket launcher can’t stop this guy. And why exactly are they trying to stop him again? Oh yeah, because he wanted a sandwich.

First Blood is definitely the best of the Rambo movies, much like how Rocky is the best of the Rocky films. The two sequels (Rambo: First Blood Part Two and Rambo 3) amp up the action but scale back quite a bit on logic and heart. The great thing about First Blood is that just when you thought that you’ve got the movie pegged that final scene hits you like a load of bricks. Rambo stands in for all Vietnam veterans who saw horrible things over there, only to be treated like second class citizens upon coming back to the US. Rambo goes crazy because the world is crazy. He can’t help going a little mad.

(SEE)

Alright fellow Bardians… Open up your brand spanking new copy of the Bardian (I know you cherish this as much as I do). Turn to page 33. Look at the second picture from the top, right hand side of the page. Yep, that’s Mike and Sara!

Awww…don’t they look so cute. Beware. Now my parents know what you look like together. For some reason I also got chastised for not going. I’m going to stop now.

OK, I know that some of you are looking for the Monday Movie Review. It’s about halfway done. Due to the recent illness it has been hard to focus on the writing, as a whole lot came out incoherent and vague. Don’t worry. I’m working on it. Hopefully tomorrow…